The present study examines the pedagogical use of reading aloud of science trade books as an effective tool for teaching nature of science (NOS) to elementary students. To this end, we explore elementary teachers’ and students’ dialogic negotiation of NOS during interactive science read-alouds, as well as potential interactions between their sense-making patterns, NOS views, and trade-book representations of NOS. It was found that, when a book had explicit NOS aspects in it, a teacher with more informed NOS views was able to facilitate a more extended, open-ended, and inclusive discussion about NOS. Conversely, when the trade book had very explicit connections, a teacher with naïve NOS views was able to only superficially address these NOS aspects without going beyond or elaborating on the information available in the book. Furthermore, the latter discussion was characteristically close-ended, exclusive of students, and limited in sense-making. These findings underscore the need for further investigation of how particular NOS aspects are narrativized in science trade-books, and how elementary teachers can effectively guide students while facilitating explicit negotiation of particular types of trade book representations of NOS during interactive science read-alouds. It is argued that improving elementary science instruction requires a more sophisticated, theory-based understanding of how NOS instruction is mediated by stories and storytelling.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Abbott, H. P. (2008). The Cambridge introduction to narrative (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816932.
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Rutherford’s enlarged: A content-embedded activity to teach about nature of science. Physics Education, 37(1), 64–68. https://doi.org/10.1088/00319120/37/1/309.
Abramzon, N., Saccoman, S., & Hoeling, B. (2017). Improving the attitude of pre-service elementary school teachers towards teaching physics. International Journal of Elementary Education, 6(3), 16–23. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijeedu.20170603.11.
Akerson, V. L., & Abd El Khalick, F. (2003). Teaching elements of nature of science: A yearlong case study of a fourth-grade teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 1025–1049. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10119.
Akerson, V. L., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2005). How should I know what scientists do—I’m just a kid: Fourth-grade students’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 17, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03174669.
Akerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F. S., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Influence of a Reflective explicit activity-based approach on elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 295–317. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(200004)37:4<295::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-2.
Akerson, V. L., Buzzelli, C. A., & Donnelly, L. A. (2010a). On the nature of teaching nature of science: Preservice early childhood teachers’ instruction in preschool and elementary settings. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(2), 213–233. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20323.
Akerson, V. L., & Hanuscin, D. L. (2007). Teaching nature of science through inquiry: Results of a 3-year professional development program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(5), 653–680. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20159.
Akerson, V. L., Weiland, I. S., Pongsanon, K., & Nargund, V. (2010b). Evidence-based strategies for teaching nature of science to young children. Journal of Kırşehir Education, 11(4), 61–78.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2009). Benchmarks for science literacy: Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bateson, M. C. (1999). Ordinary creativity. In A. Montuori & R. Purser (Eds.), Social creativity (Vol. 1, pp. 153–171). Cresskill: Hampton Press.
Bircher, L. S. (2009). Reading aloud: A springboard to inquiry. The Science Teacher, 76(5), 29–33.
Brassell, D. (2006). Inspiring young scientists with great books. The Reading Teacher, 60(4), 336–342. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.60.4.3.
Bricker, P. L. (2005). Children’s books and the nature of science: A multisite naturalistic case study of three elementary teachers in the rural southeast. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (AAT 3197597).
Brunner, J. (2016). Enriching science trade books with explicit-reflective nature of science instruction: Impacting elementary teachers’ practice and improving students’ learning [dissertation]. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois. 214 p. Accessed from: Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship, Last updated 2016 Nov 10.
Buxton, C. A., & Austin, P. (2003). Better books, better teaching. Science and Children, 41(2), 28–32.
Bybee, R. W. (2006). Scientific inquiry and science teaching. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science. Science and Technology Education Library (Vol. 25). Dordrecht: Springer.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Clough, M. P. (2006). Learners’ responses to the demands of conceptual change: Considerations for effective nature of science instruction. Science & Education, 15, 463–494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-005-4846-7.
Cohen, L., & Ambrose, D. (1999). Adaptation and creativity. In M. Runco & S. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (Vol. 1, pp. 9–22). San Diego: Academic Press.
Fisher, D., Flood, J., Lapp, D., & Frey, N. (2004). Interactive read alouds: Is there a common set of implementation practices? The Reading Teacher, 58(1), 8–17. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.58.1.1.
Fischer, G., Giaccardi, E., Eden, H., Sugimoto, M., & Ye, Y. (2005). Beyond binary choices: Integrating individual and social creativity. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63, 482–512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.04.014.
Ford, D. J. (2006). Representations of science within children’s trade books. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 214–235. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20095.
Gentner, D., Imai, M., & Boroditsky, L. (2002). As times goes by: Evidence for two systems in processing space time metaphors. Language and Cognitive Processes, 17(5), 537–565. https://doi.org/10.1080/0169096014300031.
Glăveanu, V. P. (2010). Paradigms in the study of creativity: Introducing the perspective of cultural psychology. New Ideas in Psychology, 28, 79–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2009.07.007.
Kletzien, S. B., & Dreher, M. J. (2004). Informational text in K-3 classrooms: Helping Children read and write (pp. 45–54). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (p. 354). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 497–521. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10034.
Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–879). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8.
McComas, W. F. (2008). Seeking historical examples to illustrate key aspects of the nature of science. Science & Education, 17(2–3), 249–263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-007-9081-y.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education: Revised and expanded from case study research in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Metz, D., Klassen, S., McMillan, B., Clough, M., & Olson, J. (2007). Building a foundation for the use of historical narratives. Science & Education, 16(3–5), 313–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-006-9024-z.
Mesci, G., & Schwartz, R. S. (2017). Changing preservice science teachers’ views of nature of science: Why some conceptions may be more easily altered than others. Research in Science Education, 47(2), 329–351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9503-9.
Mitchell, C. J. (1984). Case studies. In R. F. Ellen (Ed.), Ethnographic research: A guide to general conduct (pp. 237–241). London: Academic Press.
Montuori, A. (2012). Creativity and its nature. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (pp. 837–840). Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_809.
Moss, D. M., Abrams, E. D., & Robb, J. (2001). Examining student conceptions of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 23(8), 771–790. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690117727.
National Research Council. (2012). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Oliveira, A. W. (2011). Science communication in teacher personal pronouns. International Journal of Science Education, 33(13), 1805–1833. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.510541.
Oliveira, A. W., Akerson, V. L., Colak, H., Pongsanon, K., & Genel, A. (2012). The implicit communication of nature of science and epistemology during inquiry discussion. Science Education, 96(4), 652–684. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21005.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Purser, R., & Montuori, A. (2000). In search of creativity: Beyond individualism and collectivism. Paper presented at the Western Academy of Management Conference, Kona, Hawaii.
Sandlos, J. (1998). The storied curriculum: Oral narratives, ethics, and environmental education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 30, 5–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958969809601857.
Schraw, G., Olafson, L., & VanderVeldt, M. (2012). Epistemological development and learning. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (pp. 1165–1168). Basel: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_355.
Schussler, E. E. (2008). From flowers to fruits: How children’s books represent plant reproduction. International Journal of Science Education, 30(12), 1677–1696. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701570248.
Trundle, K. C., & Saçkes, M. (2015). Research in early childhood science education. Dordrecht: Springer.
Wilkinson, M. L. N. (2014). The concept of the absent curriculum: The case of the Muslim contribution and the English National Curriculum for history. Journal of Curriculum Studies., 46(4), 419–440. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2013.869838.
Zarnowski, M., & Turkel, S. (2013). How nonfiction reveals the nature of science. Children’s Literature in Education, 44, 295–310. https://doi.org/10.5840/thought196944232.
List of trade books analyzed
Stille, D. (2006). Electricity Simply Discussion. Compass Point Books.
Stille, D. (2001). Electricity. Compass Point Books.
Hiscock, B. (1999). The Big Rock. Aladdin.
Pfefferand, W. and Reisch, J. (2003). The Shortest Day. Dutton Books for Young Readers.
Greenburg, K.E. (1998). Storm Chaser. Blackbirch Press.
Cherry, L. (1992). A River Ran Wild. Harcourt Childrens Books.
Jenkins, R. and Page, S. (2008). How Many Ways Can You Catch a Fly? HMH Books for Young Readers.
Levine, S. and Johnstone, L. (2006). Mighty Machines. Sterling.
Graham, I. (2005). Water. Heinemann Raintree.
Seuss, D. (1976). Bartholomew. Random House.
Cole, J. (1997). Magic School Bus. Scholastic.
Brown, D. (2010). A Wizard From the Start. HMH Books for Young Readers.
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Lead Editor: S. Martin.
About this article
Cite this article
Rivera, S., Oliveira, A. “Why would Benjamin Franklin want to know if lightning was electricity?” elementary teachers and students making sense of the nature of science during interactive read-alouds. Cult Stud of Sci Educ (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-020-09988-2
- Science read-alouds
- Elementary science
- Teacher-led discussions
- Dialogic sense-making